The significance of this issue appears to be difficult to comprehend. This appears to be directly in relation to the categorizations of computer games and sci-fi novels on occasion discussing “nanobots” (though, apparently, irrelevant to most that these are usually written by leftists who believe the future requires a collectivist, and therefore one, world order). Some speak of “dumbing down,” I'll suggest also a “numbing down” of the population, using nouns in such a manner that eventually they are categorized away over a period of time to lose all significance of meaning except as categorized. With “nanobots,” the assumption is made that they are part of some ethereal, a “virtuality” and are no longer subject to any other review, nor taken seriously, relegated to the domain of “unreality” and discarded with laughter, at best.
The trouble with this is when the future, featuring what appears a phantasmagorical Collectivists' erotic spectacle of a genuine one-world socialist, and thereby governmental, order is actually here as modern day current reality (as we assume “tin foil hat time,” and even poking fun at those who advance that there is a current reality to what was once relegated to the category of fantasy and sci-fi) – that it is time we realize we are in the midst of exactly what was portended in books such as 1984, where the title was the inversion of the last 2 digits by its author, George Orwell, who wrote the book in 1948.
What makes this whole thing more audacious, is the apparent contempt, the nerve of someone to actually pose the notion of such “Big Brother” mind control, that evidently derives from the point when the design leaves the realm of history, of how the Collectivists, the Communists, have become known to operate. Nanobot technology is an unanticipated departure from history, a foreign thought to the historical, and a denial of the technology of the here and now that we cannot allow to happen irrespective of our desire to assume that our enemies aren't all that bright. We deny, in the face of all history to the contrary, that our enemy has the power and capacity to be a most creative, inventive, and ingenious enemy, respectable if not for all their effort going to the heinous designs of eradicating freedom of thought, invention, and Individual Liberty in self-determination. These cannot co-exist in a collective design except by coercion to exchange privilege for right, something nanobot technology can assure occurs.
To illustrate from the past, let's look closely at a well-known Author, H.G. Wells to gain comprehension of his evolved socialist perspective.
Here's a list of Mr. Wells' books, one of many I found, and that appears to be accurate, http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~tdoyle/hgbib.html[TL note: This link is now "forbidden" and haven't found a replacement, sorry]. Please look at, his most famous works, those that inspired movies, being written prior to 1900, such as “The Time Machine,” “The Invisible Man,” and “War Of The Worlds.”
Now, let's take a quick visual scan of, “Mankind In The Making,” (from 1903 in the list) from the Preface:
“It may save misunderstanding if a word or so be said here of the aim and scope of this book. It is written in relation to a previous work, Anticipations, [Footnote: Published by Harper Bros.] and together with that and a small pamphlet, "The Discovery of the Future," [Footnote: Nature, vol. lxv. (1901-2), p. 326, and reprinted in the Smithsonian Report for 1902] presents a general theory of social development and of social and political conduct. It is an attempt to deal with social and political questions in a new way and from a new starting-point, viewing the whole social and political world as aspects of one universal evolving scheme, and placing all social and political activities in a defined relation to that; and to this general method and trend it is that the attention of the reader is especially directed. -- Bold & underline emphasis mine, http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7058)
Here's another one to take a quick scan through, “Socialism And The Family,” (from 1906 in the list) http://www.archive.org/details/socialismandfam01wellgoog, beginning of Chapter 1, explained as part of a series of papers Mr. Wells wrote:
“SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY
“These are two papers written by Mr. H. G. Wells. The first was read to the Fabian Society in October, 1906, under the title of " Socialism and the Middle Classes.' 1 The second appeared first in the "Independent Review.'* Together they state pretty completely the attitude of Modern Socialism to family life.
“In this paper I am anxious to define and discuss the relationship between three distinct things:
“(1) Socialism, i.e. a large, a slowly elaborating conception of a sane and organized state and moral culture to replace our present chaotic way of living,
“(2) the Socialist movement, and
“(3) the Middle Classes.”
These have been presented to give an idea of the forces pushing for a collectivist society, even the development of a collective mind, that fiction and futuristic writers like H.G. Wells thought was the best course for mankind. It is why his contribution to our having a U.N. today cannot be overlooked, http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/19jan/leag119.htm and http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/19feb/leag219.htm.
These excerpts show we have over 100 years of ignored history to catch up on in comprehending the Progressive adversaries to private property rights; adversaries to the authority of an Individual to rightful possession of their self-generated surplus, particularly if based upon their Individual actions in, achievement, ambition, and frugality; adversaries to the idea that one can be trusted to be honorable with their own property because the cohesive social bond is the market force of other Individuals who will seek remedies to wrongs, through the legal process; and adversaries to the fact that it is we the Individual in Liberty that chooses to what we will give social value as a matter of course in the exercise of our unique and exceptional American Freedom in Capitalism. That these people cannot comprehend those things that transcend the plane of trade, the material plane in warmth and appreciation, feeding our hearts and minds, is a generous and honorable ala mode on a well-deserved portion of apple pie that celebrates having pursued one’s own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, as an absolutely unfettered act of Mankind in Freedom. An act repeated often enough to have proven it fosters even more honorable dealings, more seizing of opportunities that bring mutual benefit to those involved and those that one chooses to include in receiving the fruits of their achievements.
And this brings us to a non-exhaustive list of the significant questions nanobots present: What if we don't choose to participate in Freedom? What if only a plurality of people equivalent to the margin between left and right is tainted by this technology, and therefore the means of at least giving the appearance of a shift from center-right to a center-left nation? Who will not get a nanobot treatment when their life is on the line and they weigh losing some memories against dying to rationalize their decision? How many recognize that losing those means of thought, those electrochemical reactions of God's design that are harnessed in your mind, of which we only use some 10%, is to dabble with the unknown and take a risk of fate with your identity, with the life experiences and other ways the remaining 90% of your mind comprehended in making you who you are?
But of course, there's no need to consider this seriously, it's just nonsense from a computer game, from science-fiction, Nanomedical Collaboration Improves Drug Delivery System, Controlled Bacteria Build A Nanoscale Pyramid, Resistance Is Futile: Nanobots To Invade Cancer Cells, and please consider if the following is installed in your new “nanobot artificial neural net,” Software That Listens For Lies. Amazing that there are actually companies TODAY collaborating on nanotechnologies believed not to exist.
Move along... There's nothing to see here, I mean, once our mind belongs to those writing the code, who will know the difference, right? It's not like the left has this “ends justify the means” mentality, now is it? No, of course not, just count backwards from 100 and let the anesthesia of reality, as you know it, take you back into the Matrix. Here's your rose-colored glasses and blue pill, oh, and I put a new cover on your copy of the Communist Manifesto, taken from a copy of Utopia written by Sir Thomas More in 1516.
Thank you for reading,
P.S. I must note that, in reading Mr. Wells' socialist works, that there is inclusion of religion as a part of Socialism, that even the notion of everyone believing in one religion is discussed, yet the notion of religious belief is not even a part of the current socialist discussion. I believe the Progressives today have learned that religion is to intimate an issue to include as part of their discussion, locking it out by dismissive claims so as to not expose that Socialism has replaced religious belief with the religious worship of science. In the historical writings of Mr. Wells', you'll find mention of living a “normal social life” where great reverence is given to those who loathe and reject technology. For brevity I did not go into this by citation, but am compelled to mention this to show that our current socialists are hiding many facts as to the original meaning and history of socialism, to what gave this a means to take root in our nation, and how these things have been removed from the modern meaning and definition. It appears that this has been done in the name of the collective, to filter out all opportunity of individuality, of personal choice, and thereby, any opportunity for one to think for themselves. This would be the natural course of collectivism for it to be perfected, at least in the minds of those who follow and ignore the individualism, and liberties thereby taken, by those who direct the collective.